While I agree in general, the decline of gas stations started long before now. The first reports i can find about the rapidly declining number of gas stations are from the later part of the -00s. Back then it was because cars had better mileage, but it also highlights that petrol stations don't go bust because 100% of customers disappear. They go bust because 100% of the profits disappear and if the profit margin is only a few percent, that doesn't necessarily take much at all.

There are other factors as well. When a commodity goes from a high volume, low margin commodity to a high value necessity, prices will start to come up.

I also wonder what happens further up the production chain. It isn't just cars that are affected, transportation is too. The big push right now is for electrified heavy road transport. And if dents are made in that sector, the real high volume fuel, effects will be seen in everything from transportation to agriculture.

As for car parts, SAAB went bust in 2008 and there are still plenty of those around. However, that was before the digital revolution, so they are easier (not easy) DIY cars. Finding dealer specific experts with required skills and software is harder for newer cars.

I see potential, but ultimately it comes down to cost, energy density and time to market.

4,2MWh in a 40 footer is more than the 2MWh we see today, but it is still not enough. A city in the 100k-region can be at the 80MW mark, so with 4,2MWh@0.01C it would take 2000 containers to be able to run that city for the 100 hours spoken about in the article.

Don't get me wrong, it is an incredible achievement, not least geopolitically, but for it to take off costs need to be low. If they are at price parity with LFP/sodium batteries I'll want 1 for testing. If they are at half the cost I will start looking for places to stack containers.

Refinery shut down has already started in Europe^^, and those left are trying to find alternative markets.

I'm across the border from you, but i mostly use my card to charge. It's rare, I can think of one bigger provider requiring their own app, but it doesn't differ one bit from the petrol companies loyalty programs: "become a member and save X cents/liter and ger your own credit card"...

That's not limited to Hyundai, though. I've had similar experiences with VW. So far Volvo's been the best, but that might have been special interest.

So they want to drop feed the new battery tech before they want to use solid state. Sorry, but the only reason Tesla still has some time is because CATL doesn't have production capacity to export enough batteries.

I agree that we first need to reduce and reuse, but claiming that mining for lithium in and of itself upsets the benefits isn't fair either. It's not like oil extraction and transportation is somehow without environmental consequences, for animals and for humans. Those should not be ignored either!

Yes, we need strong protection for vital habitats, but that mean we need to use the last intrusive first, not that we shouldn't. Because continuing using diesel in our cities will poison everyone that lives there as well as the rest of the planet!

At the end of the day the environment which was saved due to not going for the lithium might die anyway because of the extra heat in the slightly longer perspective...

"shouldn't exist"? More like, "we don't know how they are formed (yet)".

I guess the issue would be that there shouldn't have been enough time to form two black holes that large and have them meet by collisions. So either black holes are more common than thought, or there are other ways for them to form.

So, without the shift in fuel the emissions would be 2% higher? Why is that not a good thing?

Yes, we want total emissions lower, but without the efuel emissions would have been even higher.

Absolutely! You are quite right. However, my interpretation of this message is not necessarily "we might reconsider our stance on troop mines". Rather it is: "we will go to any lengths, even those we find barbaric and cruel, to defend our nation". Although on the face of it, it is the wording of the agreement that sets the formalities.

Oh, it wasn't the UN that was the intended recipient of that particular message. That's why it was sent publicly...

I'd say it is an obvious way to try to confuse BEV with LEV... To sell more ICE-cars...